Ok, thanks Andrei !!! Cisco anounce the loose routing implementation in the release notes of v3.1.1 of ATA firmware. I must open a case to solve this bug (take Request-URI from Contact:) for next releases.
Thanks. Ezequiel Colombo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul" pelinescu-onciul@fokus.fraunhofer.de To: "Ezequiel Colombo" ecolombo@arcotel.net Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 1:35 PM Subject: Re: [Serusers] ATA186 v3.1.1 LooseRoute logic
On Jul 15, 2004 at 13:12, Ezequiel Colombo ecolombo@arcotel.net wrote:
I are testing the last (v3.1.1) version of SIP firmware for Cisco ATA186
and
see some bug or misimplementation of loose routing logic. I want known if my interpretation of the loose routing are correct.
The test scenario is:
U1(ATA186) -- callto -- U2(X-Lite)
U1 = 200.80.35.6:25263 SER= 200.80.35.17:5060 U2 = 200.80.35.6:26198
After the answer (200 OK) from X-Lite the Cisco ATA 186 send a
different
ACK message with version 3.1.0 and 3.1.0 firmware. The ACK sent by
version
3.1.1 never reack X-Lite causing it to re-send the 200 OK message.
In version v3.1.0 the ACK to a 200OK is sent by ATA with URI equal to
the
proxy address as indicated by Record-Route in the previously received 200OK, and with
a
Route: header equal to the URI of the remote party (U2). With this SER perform loose-routing, take the URI in the Route: hf and sent the message to U2.
This is actually strict routing.
In version v3.1.1 the ACK to a 200OK is sent by ATA with URI equal to
the U2
address (without port information) and a Route: header indicating the URI of the proxy. So is expected that SER perform loose-routing taking the URI in the Route:
header
and send the message to itself in this case (Route contain address of proxy
instead
of U2) but not, the loose-routing is not performed for unknown reason (may be ftag
or
lr ?) and the message is sent to the original uri (U2 ip without port) and never arrive because the U2 endpoint are listen in other port (26198 instead of 5060).
This is "normal" loose routing (you don't touch the uri, but you send the message to the route address). It seems they use loose routing in this version. However you are right about the port bug. The uri must contain the same uri as in the 200 Ok Contact, including the port.
Andrei